It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Christ's History ~ Why the Delay In Recording It?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:53 AM
From what I was taught in a theology class...

The gospels as we know them were compiled from earlier sources. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke were compiled from a common source (dubbed Q source ), with each separate author picking up bits and pieces from other sources, while adding their own "flair"- or how they shaped the writing and narrative structures and themes.
Check out Synoptic Gospels

The Gospel of John was actually from a completely different source and tradition altogether.

The point that must always be remembered, is that the vast majority of people- especially early Christians- were illiterate. Remember that witnesses of Jesus would have been around for at least half of the gap between Jesus' life and the creation of the gospels, and that most people probably believed his return was imminent- word of mouth alone at that point was all that was needed.

Once it became clear that they might be in for a bit of wait for Jesus' return, the church leaders at that point decided to collect all the prominent and important christian writings at the time and preserve them. There were many writings that were considered, but ultimately did not make the final cut.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by aaaiii

And why would I want to love my enemy. They're my enemy for a reason.

Adolf Hitler would agree with you.

I do not.

Happy are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

I have seen this first hand in my life.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by GD21D

I remember reading somewhere (???) that during his lifetime Jesus was not referred to as the son of God. During his lifetime Jesus was considered just a man with a good message. There was no talk of miricles or that he was some kind of diety. Those things were added to the story later on.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by troubleshooter

I don't dispute that he existed.

I question his true importance and I wonder about his divinity.

I got confused by my own thread. Sorry.

I can be stupid sometimes.
edit on 6/23/2012 by aaaiii because: (no reason given)

But your humility makes you lovable too.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by dusty1

I did. I am holding the patent. everybody owes me money for using my invention.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:54 PM
yeah, why was there a 100 year gap? i mean harry potters 'historical records' were started almost straight away

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by aaaiii

Take ten people and tell one a story and by the time it gets to number ten it doesn't remotely resemble the original story.

I think you may have answered your own OP question. Think about it, in order to make one statement about who implored you to go and spread the message of restoration (the Gospel), having served directly under him for 3 years with signs and wonders following, then after his death and resurrection, a few hundred stories are now surfacing within the christian community about who Jesus was, what he did .. etc..

Non-messianic Jews in the NT were a constant pebble in Paul's shoe. hence the writings of Galatians. I believe it got to a point where as you said.. "telegraph' gospel, got to a point where the Apostles/Elders/Pastors needed to make ONE statement about Christ and his entire life and message.

Staying in touch with the other Apostles had to have daunting task at hand being there were no phones then and messengers on foot or horse back/chariots/wagons/ships were the only means of travel thus, sending & receiving information had to have been quite slow; thus upon receiving information/letters had to be replied has to be adding in the mix as well.

Here's another thing to think about. Persecution was very present, way more so than today. In some written accounts of other writings or known customs, most Apostles/Pastors didn't really want to have their whereabouts readily known in order to keep the church/message alive & making disciples. Rome wanted the entire church wiped out shortly after Jesus death, thus the reason the Christians scattered (Acts chapter 6(?))

Under that kind of constant pressure, means of communication, troubles of keeping track of other whereabouts of other church leaders, collaboration of writings of doctrine, 70 AD, IMO certainly does fit the bill for a time line.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by Komodo

Makes sense.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:26 PM
I see the Jesus story a little differently.

If you read it and think of it as a political movement against a oppressive ruler and a degrading society it all starts to make more sense.

In oppressive societies moral break down usually occurs and materialism reigns. So you have Jesus going around helping people, teaching them good morals, and telling some to leave all their possessions.

Then he runs the money changers from the temples like a political movement against corruption in government. In those times religion and government were entwined.

He was mocked as claiming to being King of the Jews. The religious leaders are the ones that demanded his execution and were also the money changers. Rulers were usually considered a god or son of god with a divine right to rule.

His movement grew bigger than the man. Like many political movements for good. The idea continues or surpasses the man that started it. Resulting in the later dressing up of the story.

So going from my theory of Jesus starting a political movement against oppression. He wouldn't have been the first, explaining the cross reference to earlier people like Mirtha. And in times of oppressive rule spreading opposition literature could get you killed, explaining the delay in recording.

You have to realize these people talked in fancy ways but knew the reality of what was being said.

And the Roman empire is trying to rise again. The money changers are strangling us all again. We have one politician standing up to the money changers again, and promoting good moral rational thinking on issues. And as in the past the idea and movement are surpassing the man who started it..... History repeating itself?

If the works of Jesus truly was a political movement against oppression then those that want to oppress would want people to look at the literature in a different way than it was meant, in an imagination surreal way so the people would lose the message and could be oppressed again.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:44 PM

Originally posted by aaaiii
As believer in the man, Christ, I have often wondered why his faithful waited 100 years or more to record an historical record of his life.

Well, among believers the consensus is that they did write things down, but the source has not survived, like the Q document which is supposedly the basis of the synoptic gospels.

If he was such an important figure, performed miracles, spoke profoundly on life, was the son of God, why was there such a long period of time between his death and the actual record of his history?

Well, because all that was not so special in those days; a lot of people claimed and were said to have done miracles. My question is: "Wouldn't the Romans keep records on someone the crucified under the accusation of sedition (king of the Jews)?" Another good explanation may be that Jesus and his disciples might have been not literate enough to write things down or had other reasons not to write things down. Consider that the great philosopher Socrates did not write anything down himself, but his pupils did, like Plato for example.

If he was such an important figure why did his disciples not record everything he said and did while he was alive?

Well, not all of them would be literate enough to write something down. Also see above about Socrates.

Was he possibly made into a more important figure ex post facto to suit the needs of a burgeoning Church?

The Church, especially ever since it was established in freedom and then became the sole state religion did fudge a lot of things and forged some things, too; the testimonioum Flavianum comes to mind.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:54 PM
I'm not posting because I'm in listening mode.

Thanks to everyone who posted. Please keep posting your thoughts on the subject. I'm reading everything.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:34 PM
I was raised to believe, but I would like to add a few questions to this.

1 Is there public record of infanticide by King Harod the Great? This would prove a time frame of Christs birth. Recently there was a thread about earthquakes/eclipse back then and they have been able to pin point a approximation of Jesus death. These two events would support a time frame of Jesus birth and death.

2 What record exists of the Three Kings, Three Magi, Three Wise Men. Do any writing from these men exist and who were they?

3 They placed on his head a crown of thorns. There is no record of them crucifying the king of the Jews?

4 Most credit Josephus with the first writings of Jesus some 40 years after his death. Did he write about the man Christ or the title of Christ?

5 Jesus had many followers, is it possible some of these people did write about his life. but after his death these writings were hidden and are yet to be revealed?

6 What writing exist of the star in the east, or a supernova? There has to be astronomical data from back then. This would also show the time of birth.
edit on 23-6-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:37 PM
a. I think that first you have to realize that until the invention of the printing press virtually the entire world was oral -- for anything you name it was the exception that something be written, it was not the rule but the exception. Take your pick at a number but almost certainly something along the lines of ~95% of Jesus' followers, even the leaders, could not read or write much more than their names.

b. Actually writing Jesus' teaching down starts comparatively early or spot on when looking at what we see with other major religions in a world with little literacy. The first generation of followers have no real need for a written guidebook as they received their instructions from the founder, the next generation begins to see serious disagreement and drift in message, people's recollections change etc. and the need for written scripture emerges.

Dates approx.
Jesus d. 33, first written texts (Paul 50's, Gospels 90s)
Mohammed d.610, first written texts 690's (some scholars would say mid-700's)
Buddha d.480, first written texts 800's
Guru Nadak (Sikhism) d.1539 scriptual text ~1500 until 1708
Isaih d.~700ish, as wiki says of the Book of Isaih in the Torah and Bible it was written in three parts: the first, termed Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), contains the words of the 8th-century BCE prophet with 7th-century BCE expansions; the second, Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), is the work of a 6th-century BCE author writing near the end of the Babylonian captivity; and the third, the poetic Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), was composed in Jerusalem shortly after the return from exile, probably by multiple authors.

Christianity is not the exception on writing down teachings is the point.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:40 PM
Honestly we will never know. Consider this factoid: Emanuel, Jesus or Yeshua? We cannot even agree on his true name FFS – how can we agree on who, what, why wrote the bible. All I know is the true message/lessons of forgiveness and acceptance had to be manipulated. This is why the bible is inherently contradictory. Lucifer is a tricky bastard. I have stopped using the term “Christ” for that very reason. I like this debate, what is boils down to is basically intuition…

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by karen61057

I think you read somewhere, a bit of BS disinfo.

I don't know what else to say to you. Seriously. Apart from a little snippet of testimony:

Even today there are attested miracles occurring in the lives of believers. As just one example, a member of our church, who had been declared legally and clinically blind (due to degradation of the optic nerves) woke up one morning after a night of prayer with other church members, and found that he could see again. The doctors have no explanation, and simply wrote it up as an inexplicable spontaneous regeneration of the optic nerves. Which is, according to our entire understanding of medicine and physiology, a MIRACLE.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

How do you explain miracles that happen with other religions?

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:09 PM

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by LDragonFire

How do you explain miracles that happen when people call on the name of Christ? Christ is the focus of the thread... Really - let's try to stay on-topic...

If you can explain to me how genuine miracles occur when Christian believers pray over someone to recover, then I will explain to you how miracles can occur in other religions.

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by LDragonFire

How do you explain miracles that happen when people call on the name of Christ? Christ is the focus of the thread... Really - let's try to stay on-topic...

If you can explain to me how genuine miracles occur when Christian believers pray over someone to recover, then I will explain to you how miracles can occur in other religions.

I have witnessed miracles.

I can't explain it.

You claim you know.

I asked you to explain other miracles not associated with Christ.

The thread topic is the delay in recording the life of Christ, so we are both guilty of off topic replies.

Why do you think there was a delay in recording the life of Christ?

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by Toromos

Okay, but there still is no history of Christ from his time. Everything written about him came long after his death.

If he was so important wouldn't they have written about him while he was alive?

Alright, you seem to be trying to discredit what people have written, you, aaaiii, are a person, why should we consider your words of any importance? We don't know your history, and no one is writing about you while you are alive, tell us, why should we align ourselves to your assumptions?

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in